• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court (Child rapists get to live)

Somehow I feel this should be a state decision. While I can see how some child rapists should be executed I can see how some should not. This should be determined on a case by case basis. This isn't something that a blanket solution like this will solve.
 
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Somehow I feel this should be a state decision. While I can see how some child rapists should be executed I can see how some should not. This should be determined on a case by case basis. This isn't something that a blanket solution like this will solve.
Click to expand...

QFT Much agree!
 
No need for the death penalty. Send him to prison and make sure he is put with the general population. Problem solved.
 
Originally posted by: Skitzer
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Somehow I feel this should be a state decision. While I can see how some child rapists should be executed I can see how some should not. This should be determined on a case by case basis. This isn't something that a blanket solution like this will solve.
Click to expand...

QFT Much agree!
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.

 
Originally posted by: OrByte
SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

While we pay to keep them alive, knowing they will never contribute anything of value to society.
 
Originally posted by: IGBT
..falls in line with secular progressive agenda.
Click to expand...

Watching a little too much Bill O'Reilly I see.

As for all the people who are advocating for them to be killed in prison, you disgust me. The macho appeals to vigilante justice because someone was only locked up in prison for the rest of their lives as opposed to being killed aren't cool, they are creepy.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/....child.rape/index.html

I say don't worry about it. Remove special protection from these guys in prison and it will all work out in the end.
Click to expand...

No need for the death penalty. Send him to prison and make sure he is put with the general population. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

And I say you are two immoral people.
Click to expand...
Craig are you saying we should feel sorry for these pieces of dogsh*t that rape children? Such that we need to keep them segregated from the others for their protection??

Nope, general population is EXACTLY what they deserve...same treatment other prisoners get for most other serious felonies.
 
As much as this guy deserves to die, and have horrible things done to him before hand, I don't trust our court system and twelve random people to decide sentences for anyone beyond being locked up for x amount of time.
 
Originally posted by: OrByte
Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

Really?

What about those stupid cases where the guy turns 18 yrs old and gets charged with rape for having sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend?

IMO, they are not all the same.

Well, with the eminent domian case, the habeas corpus case, and now this I don't see how people can claim that this is a conservative SCOTUS.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: OrByte
SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

While we pay to keep them alive, knowing they will never contribute anything of value to society.
Click to expand...

Following this line of reasoning out to its conclusion I guess you figure someone that has enough repeat offenses on their record that they're in and out of prison for a majority of their lives should just be executed to save the country the trouble?

Better yet, everyone upon birth gets a "jail allowance", once you use up the time you're allotted to be in jail we just execute you because you're obviously not contributing anything to society by being in jail so often - regardless of your offense.
 
Originally posted by: Fern


Really?

What about those stupid cases where the guy turns 18 yrs old and gets charged with rape for having sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend?

IMO, they are not all the same.

Well, with the eminent domian case, the habeas corpus case, and now this I don't see how people can claim that this is a conservative SCOTUS.

Fern
Click to expand...

!?!

Probably because of the dozens of other extremely conservative decisions they have made. Just because a center right justice occasionally swings towards the other more liberal (but still at best centrist) justices does not change the fact that this court is very conservative.
 
Originally posted by: SpunkyJones
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Mail5398
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/....child.rape/index.html

I say don't worry about it. Remove special protection from these guys in prison and it will all work out in the end.
Click to expand...

Rudder:
No need for the death penalty. Send him to prison and make sure he is put with the general population. Problem solved.
Click to expand...


And I say you are two immoral people.
Click to expand...

Guess I"m immoral too.
Click to expand...

You sure are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
If someone was asking for across the board permission, then I'm not surprised by the result. Our justice system is about punishment not revenge/vengeance.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: OrByte
Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

Really?

What about those stupid cases where the guy turns 18 yrs old and gets charged with rape for having sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend?

IMO, they are not all the same.

Well, with the eminent domian case, the habeas corpus case, and now this I don't see how people can claim that this is a conservative SCOTUS.

Fern
Click to expand...
That is statutory rape, I'm sorry if I didn't make the distinction between statutory rape and child rape.

But clearly there is a distinction.

 
Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.
Click to expand...

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: OrByte
SCOTUS is saying that capital punishment should only be on the table in crimes where human life is lost.

Determining whether one child rape is more heinous than another is stupid when I believe all child rape (or rape for that matter) is equally heinous. Essentially that is what would happen if courts were to decide on a "case by case" basis.

Those convicted of such brutal crimes should rot in a cell for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

While we pay to keep them alive, knowing they will never contribute anything of value to society.
Click to expand...

Yes we keep them alive. Or I guess we can start handing down capital punishment to repeat offenders and other useless filth serving out life sentences.

To eliminate the inconvenience of having to pay for their incarceration right?

Capital Punishment is a severe penalty and our justice system should be weary of how it is utilized. I feel that loss of human life is an acceptable threshold, anything else might be harder to justify. As it is I am against CP so take it for what you will...
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.
Click to expand...

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.
Click to expand...

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.
 
Originally posted by: teiresias
Following this line of reasoning out to its conclusion I guess you figure someone that has enough repeat offenses on their record that they're in and out of prison for a majority of their lives should just be executed to save the country the trouble?

Better yet, everyone upon birth gets a "jail allowance", once you use up the time you're allotted to be in jail we just execute you because you're obviously not contributing anything to society by being in jail so often - regardless of your offense.
Click to expand...

Yes. It sounds harsh, and it probably means that a couple of my friends would be facing execution (I know some good people), but I firmly believe that not all people are equal, and not all people are worth "saving." We spend tens of thousands per year per prisoner on people who are never going to be let out of prison. I would rather see that money go help a starving orphan in Africa. Why should we ignore the sick and dying in favor of someone who we objectively deem not fit for society just because s/he had the good fortune to be born here rather than there?

I know it's naive, but I like to think of the world as a global community. I want to get along, all of us, working together to make life better for everyone. If someone is clearly going to be a threat to others for the rest of their lives, I'd rather they die so that others have a chance to live. Life is not sacred just because we want it to be, and from any logical standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by paying to keep someone locked in a cage for 60 years.

-EDIT- Let me add, I only think this applies to violent offenders; rapists and murderers specifically. Crimes in which there is a physical victim and they are permanently changed because of the crime. Non-violent offenses and drug offenses would be exempt.
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, as well as severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said.
Click to expand...

Rape and maiming do not count? The only solace I get is in knowing full well we cannot continue to afford this sort of policy of paying the way for animals that do not respect the sanctity of life.

It might work if we start to ONLY jail violent criminals instead of everyone + dog, but if this decision leads to him/those like him ever being released and hurting another person - the blood of the innocent is on the supreme court?s hands and it is treason to betray the safety of our people.
Click to expand...

The court found that he did not intend on killing her. The fact that she required surgery is irrelevant. Even if she had died from the trauma it still wouldn't have been murder.

How is the court saying that they cannot be executed betraying the safety of the people? They didn't say that they can't be put in jail for the rest of their lives. They just said they can't be executed when no one has been killed by intentional action.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true. It might not have been first degree murder, but it definitely would have been felony murder. (which is eligible for the death penalty)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top